Why US lawmaker called India's FCRA Bill amendments an attack against Christians

A US lawmaker's criticism of India's proposed FCRA changes has renewed focus on what happens to foreign-funded assets when an organisation loses its FCRA registration. Here is all you need to know.

In Short

• US lawmaker calls proposed FCRA changes an attack against Christians
• Amendment allows government authority control over foreign-funded assets
• Government says FCRA changes close gaps in handling foreign-funded assets

A US Congressman has raised alarm over proposed changes to India's foreign-funding law, claiming they could allow the government to take control of churches and religious charities.

Republican Congressman Riley Moore, who represents West Virginia, called the proposed changes to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, or FCRA, a "clear attack against Christians". He also warned that the issue could become a concern in India-US relations.

"Christians have been in India since St. Thomas the Apostle travelled to the Malabar Coast just decades after the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ," Moore said in a post on X.

"But despite this long Christian history, India's Parliament is considering amending Foreign Contribution Regulation Amendment (FCRA) rules to permit government takeovers of churches and religious charities," he said.

"If this bill proceeds in this way, it would be a point of major concern in our bilateral relationship with India," Moore added.

Moore's remarks have now taken a debate already playing out among churches and Christian organisations in India to Washington.

But can the government really "take over" churches under the proposed law?

It is not quite that simple.

THE FCRA BILL EXPLAINED

FCRA is the law that regulates foreign donations received by organisations in India.

Put simply, an NGO, charity or religious organisation that wants to receive donations from abroad generally needs permission or registration under FCRA. The law also regulates how that foreign money can be spent.

The new FCRA Bill proposes rules for what happens to foreign money — and property bought or built with that money — when an organisation no longer has a valid FCRA registration.

This is the part that has caused concern.

Under the proposed law, if an organisation's FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered, not renewed or allowed to expire, its unused foreign funds and assets created using foreign contributions can temporarily come under a government-appointed "Designated Authority".

If the organisation gets its registration back within the prescribed period, the money and assets would be returned. If it does not, those assets could permanently vest in the Designated Authority.

The authority could then transfer them to a government department, agency or local authority for public use. In certain cases, the assets could also be sold, with the proceeds going to the Consolidated Fund of India.

Take a simple example.

Suppose an organisation received foreign donations over the years and used that money to build a school or hospital. Years later, its FCRA registration expires and is not renewed.

Under the proposed system, that property could eventually come under the Designated Authority if the organisation fails to regain its FCRA registration within the stipulated period.

And that is where much of the concern comes from.

It is not necessary for an organisation to be found guilty of a crime for this process to begin. Its registration could simply expire, not be renewed or be surrendered.

PRS Legislative Research has flagged this issue, noting that organisations with assets created from foreign contributions may effectively have to keep renewing their FCRA registration if they want to retain those assets.

SO, CAN THE GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER A CHURCH?

This is where Moore's description needs some context.

The Bill does not give the government a blanket power to seize any church simply because it receives foreign donations.

In fact, it contains a specific safeguard for places of worship.

If a place of worship eventually comes under the Designated Authority, the authority must ensure that its "religious character" is maintained. Its management or operation has to be entrusted to an eligible person.

In simple terms, a church covered by this provision cannot simply be taken over and converted into a government office or some other secular facility.

There is another important point.

The proposed provision applies to foreign contributions and assets created using those contributions. It does not mean every property belonging to an organisation can automatically be taken away just because the organisation once received money from abroad.

The government has also argued that the basic idea is not entirely new. The existing FCRA already contains provisions dealing with foreign contributions and assets after an organisation's registration is cancelled.

The new Bill creates a more detailed system for deciding what happens to such money and property.

THEN WHY ARE CHRISTIAN GROUPS WORRIED?

Because churches do not only own churches. Christian organisations across India run schools, colleges, hospitals, orphanages, charities and community programmes. Some of these institutions have received foreign donations over the years.

And this creates an important distinction.

A church building is clearly a place of worship and gets the specific protection provided in the Bill.

But what about a hospital built with foreign donations by a Christian organisation? Or a school? Or a community centre?

Those properties may not qualify as places of worship.

This is one reason Christian groups have raised concerns about the wider impact of the proposed law.

The concerns did not begin with Riley Moore.

In Meghalaya, Chief Minister Conrad Sangma met Union Home Minister Amit Shah in July along with representatives of several Christian organisations, including the Presbyterian Church of India, the North East India Christian Council, the Catholic Church and the Garo Baptist Convention.

They raised concerns about how the FCRA regime and the proposed amendments could affect religious, educational, charitable and social-welfare institutions.

The Catholic Bishops' Conference of India has also raised concerns about the proposed provisions dealing with foreign-funded assets.

There has been opposition in Mizoram as well, where Chief Minister Lalduhoma and church organisations have sought changes to the Bill.

So, Moore is stepping into a debate that was already underway in India. His comments have simply given it a new international dimension.

FOREIGN FUNDING RULES HAVE ALSO BECOME TIGHTER

The Bill is not the only recent change to FCRA.

The government separately notified new FCRA rules in June. Unlike the Bill, which is before Parliament, these rules are already in force.

Among the changes, organisations have to be more specific about why they need foreign money and where they intend to use it.

The government has also said organisations seeking renewal must have used at least Rs 10 lakh in foreign contributions during the previous two years.

The rules also spell out what foreign donations can be used for when an organisation declares a religious purpose.

Activities such as maintaining places of worship, religious education, moral instruction, meditation and preserving religious traditions are covered.

Proselytisation, however, is excluded from permissible religious purposes for foreign funding.

The government says this restriction applies across religions and maintains that FCRA itself does not target any particular faith.

THE FCRA DEBATE OVER ASSET CONTROL

India has regulated foreign donations for decades, and successive governments have argued that money coming from overseas needs scrutiny, particularly when it is being used by organisations involved in public, social or religious activities.

The government maintains that FCRA is about transparency and accountability, not religion.

Thousands of organisations continue to legally receive money from abroad. According to government figures, around 16,200 registered associations received approximately Rs 22,963 crore in foreign contributions in 2024-25.

The disagreement over the new Bill is therefore not really about whether India can regulate foreign donations. It already does.

The bigger question is what should happen to a school, hospital, church or another property that was legally built using foreign donations if the organisation owning it later loses its FCRA registration.

The proposed law gives a government-appointed authority significant powers over such assets.

At the same time, it does not amount to an unrestricted power to seize churches. The Bill specifically protects the religious character of places of worship and limits its asset provisions to foreign contributions and property created using those contributions.

Moore has described the changes as an "attack against Christians". Indian Christian organisations have raised their own concerns about what the provisions could mean for institutions they operate.

The government, on the other hand, says the changes are meant to close gaps in the existing law and create clear rules for foreign-funded assets when an organisation no longer has a valid FCRA registration.

That is where the real FCRA debate lies — not simply over churches, but over who ultimately controls assets built with foreign money when permission to receive that money comes to an end.

- Ends